From 1 October 2017, practitioners will be able to use a new electronic bill of costs in detailed assessment proceedings (this may become mandatory by April 2018). Howard Dean, who sat on the Civil Procedures Rules Committee working party for the implementation of the new bill of costs, outlines what this means in practice.

ATE premiums incepted after 1st April 2013, save for exceptions in relation to certain types of cases, ceased to be recoverable between parties as a result of the changes introduced by LASPO. However, there are many thousands of cases still running under the old regime which often raise contentious issues surrounding reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.

Ever since the Jackson Reforms, legal practitioners have been in a state of uncertainty regarding how exactly the judiciary intend to give effect to the new definition of proportionality and the new test found at CPR 44.3(5). Ben Petrecz examines the issues involved.

The clinical negligence exception to the LASPO Act 2012 abolition of recoverability of ATE premiums has resulted in a series of conflicting decisions as to the application of the new test of proportionality and the relevance of Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil CBC [2006] EWCA Civ 1134.

The Supreme Court recently looked at various issues concerning the recoverability of additional liabilities between parties in the post-Jackson era, in the case of Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd [2017] UKSC 23.

The Court of Appeal in Tibbles v SIG PLC (T/A Asphaltic Roofing Supplies) [2012] EWCA Civ 518 highlighted the implications of allocation to track and the implications on costs and thereafter the importance of timely applications if seeking to vary costs orders under CPR 3.1 (7).